SYED ASIFUDDIN VSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

 

SYED ASIFUDDIN VSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

 

CITATION:  2005 CriLJ 4314

COURT: Andhra Pradesh High Court

BENCH: V Rao

 

FACTS:

Reliance Infocomm Ltd., as part of the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer initiative, has launched an offer in which the business would sell a third-generation digital handset for three years, Rs. 10,500 and Rs. 3,350 will be paid in addition.. This plan drew a lot of attention since it caused other service providers to lose a lot of money, and it paved the path for other service providers to profit from illegal acts.

When staff members of TATA Indicom, the petitioner, were in the store that initially belonged to the second subscribers, the CDMA digital phones were hacked and tampered with fraudulently. Even by displaying superior tariff options, the second respondent's clients were enticed. Thus, according to the preceding terms and conditions the phone belonged to the second responder and the customer for three years.

The respondent filed a FIR against the petitioner on May 31, 2003, alleging violations of sections 102B, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Section 63 of the Copyright Act, and Section 65 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. TATA Indicom employees filed two petitions in 2005, asking for the same remedies that the respondent had requested.

 

 

 

ISSUES:

§  Can the court order the inquiry for violations under Sections 120B, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be halted?

§   Will tampering with the mobile identifying number, which was linked with the ESN and belonging to the reliance device, be considered modifying the computer source code by a TATA Indicom employee?

§   Is a phone handset a "computer" as defined by Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?

 

HELD:

·       According to Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act, a "computer" is any electronic, magnetic, optical, or other high-speed data processing device or system that performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions through manipulations of electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, as well as all input, output, processing, storage, computer software, or communication facilities that are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network. As a result, a telephone handset falls within the definition of "computer" as stated in Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.

·       Changing the ESN allows other service providers, such as TATA Indicomm, to use previously exclusive devices.  As a result, changing an ESN is a violation of Section 65 of the IT Act, because every service provider must keep track of its own SID code and assign a unique number to each instrument used to access the services. As a result, the applicants' convictions cannot be invalidated under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.

The criminal petition filed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Andhra Pradesh, which also invalidated the charges filed under Sections 120B, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court ordered the police to submit an inquiry report to the Metropolitan Magistrate within three months of receiving the judgment.

 

CONCLUSION:

After hearing the views of both the petitioner and the respondent, the court decided to deal with the problems separately and then deal with the prosecution case on the basis of prima facie evidence. Thus, when the ESN modified the offence under Sec 65 of the IT Act, the fact that every service provider, such as Respondent No. 2, has to retain its own SID code and also assigns a customer unique number to an instrument used to make use of the services given, is attracted prima facie. The notion that infringement cannot be committed because there is no law requiring the preservation of computer source code is unfounded. Furthermore, the retention of computer source code by a mobile phone operator is a matter of evidence. Respondent 2 is the one who maintains the source code in this case. As a result, the allegations brought  against the petitioners under the abovementioned Section are true.

 

PRECEDENT:

1.     STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. SWAPAN KUMAR

2.     STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL

3.     R.P. KAPOOR V. STATE OF PUNJAB

4.     STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. THIRUKKURAL PERMAL